Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Call for Judgment: Dynasty 100 is not in the UTD

Times out 8-3 and passes. -scshunt

Adminned at 15 Jun 2012 23:46:56 UTC

According to Rule 2.2.6:

The UTD contains a list of each dynasty from 1 to 99 in the order each dynasty occurred.

Therefore, Dynasty 100 should not be in the UTD.

According to Rule 2.2.4,

If a Time Monk would be eligible to achieve Victory in the Dynasty that they currently occupy, were they Enlightened, and if that Dynasty has not yet been Unblocked, then they may Unblock that Dynasty by making a blog post with the Title “Unblocking a Chakra: Dynasty X”, where X is the Dynasty they occupy, and placing an asterisk beside that Dynasty in the Dynastic History list on the UTD.

Therefore, ais523’s attempt to unblock Dynasty 100 failed because they couldn’t modify the UTD in the specified manner; the last section of the UTD wiki page is not actually part of the UTD.

Changes:
*Revoke ais523’s Chakra for dynasty 100 (if present)
*Remove any sections of the UTD wiki page corresponding to the “Sixth Dynasty of Josh”.

Comments

Josh:

06-12-2012 06:54:02 UTC

against I feel like this is a problem with the ruleset, not ais’ actions, which were all legal in the ruleset until he reached an unresolvable paradox. Either dynasty 100 needs to be specifically excluded from chakra-unblocking, or the UTD needs to include dynasty 100; either way, this CfJ doesn’t quite resolve the issue.

Kevan:

06-12-2012 07:23:08 UTC

for Seems simple and unparadoxical to me. To unblock Dynasty 100 you have to both make a blog post and do an impossible thing, therefore you can’t unblock Dynasty 100.

Purplebeard:

06-12-2012 07:24:57 UTC

for

quirck:

06-12-2012 09:27:35 UTC

for

scshunt:

06-12-2012 14:29:38 UTC

for

Klisz:

06-12-2012 17:36:22 UTC

for

Rodney:

06-12-2012 18:21:41 UTC

for

Bucky:

06-12-2012 23:43:07 UTC

for

moonroof:

06-13-2012 01:18:17 UTC

for

Darknight:

06-13-2012 01:34:52 UTC

for

ais523:

06-13-2012 12:14:49 UTC

against I placed an asterisk besides dynasty 100. This required placing dynasty 100 in the UTD too, but the rule authorized me to.

Bucky:

06-13-2012 13:35:49 UTC

The rule did not authorize you to add a dynasty to the UTD.

ais523:

06-13-2012 22:51:31 UTC

It did, it authorized me to “place an asterisk beside the name of the dynasty”. And what I placed there was an asterisk, beside the name of the dynasty.

The rule can equally be parsed as “(place an asterisk) beside the name of the dynasty” (how everyone else is parsing it), and “place (an asterisk besides the name of the dynasty)”, the only reading that makes sense with respect to dynasty 100.

Anyone who thinks that Josh is really in dynasty 71, which relied on a nonstandard reading of the rule, should even more think that my placement of dynasty 100 worked, which relied on a nonstandard reading of the rule which was the only one that made sense in context.

scshunt:

06-16-2012 02:41:48 UTC

CoV against  per ais523